Archive for July, 2011

Senate Republicans & Democrats have blocked action on a Democratic approach to resolving the debt-ceiling crisis. The outcome of that vote was expected and did not directly affect the behind-the-scenes negotiations on a compromise that would avert default

As I sat watching the recent Senate Cloture vote to supposedly overcome a Republican filibuster. The funny thing is even Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) voted no to end the filibuster and sent the Senate into recess. This is exactly why these morons are going to lose the majority in the Senate and the White House in the next election.

Simply amazing…Please Liberals please keep doing this the more you do this the more you slide lower and lower in the polls…

In the parlance of Washington, the Democrats are going to get the upper hand in the final round of the debt debate.  Republicans will succeed in making a vast cut in federal spending, unimaginable before the 2010 election and will block any tax increases.  Democrats will get an extension of the debt limit until after the election so as to avoid dragging Obama through this process again.

But the damage this debate has inflicted on the Obama Presidency is so deep and profound that it will have played a large part in dooming his re-election chances.  The injury to his popularity from the debt debate is far greater than the addition to his popularity he realized after killing bin Laden.

Here’s what will unfold in Washington:

Step One:  Reid and McConnell will craft a deal calling for larger so-called budget cuts (they’ll count the fictitious spending cuts achieved by avoiding foreign wars not now contemplated) and they will extend the debt limit until after the election.  McConnell will exact some language whereby Obama has to ask for the additional borrowing authority but it will require a two-thirds vote to deny it to him.  There will be a bi-partisan committee to craft further savings, but nobody will pay much attention to its results, certainly not Obama.

Step Two:  The Reid-McConnell compromise will pass the Senate with five or six defections by Democrats up for re-election and a dozen or two additions from non-tea party Republicans.

Step Three:  House Republicans will raise hell and refuse to pass the Senate bill.  Boehner will make a show of persuading them and then, finally, confronted by the “deadline” artificially ginned up by the president, he will permit it to pass with strong Democratic support.  A majority — or close to it — of his own party will vote no.

Outcome:  Obama will get credit for raising the debt limit.  Republican conservatives will be able to say they voted no.  Boehner will keep his credibility because he got a pure debt limit bill passed only with GOP votes before he crossed the aisle for final passage.

But the real outcome will be to have brought Obama’s job approval down from its bin Laden high of 55% to a new Gallup low of 40%.  That is ground he won’t be able to make up.  And, put through the rigors of tension and uncertainly, the economy will sink further into a double dip recession.  A recession brought on, in large part, by Obama’s crying wolf over the debt limit and creating an environment of financial and economic terror around its passage.

Republicans proved they can govern by passing their one-house debt limit increase.  Their fiscal conservative credentials are intact.  And Obama looks, once more, like a weak and easily cowed incompetent to his backers and a big spending and borrowing liberal to the rest of us.

Game to Obama.  Set and Match to the GOP.

This post echoes the Ester Goldberg (D) vs. Steven Bravo ( R ) post, this time though it is the White House Press Secretary resorting to name calling. See once again instead of just being honest and holding themselves accountable they resort to name calling and tom foolery. When the Liberals Progressives Democrats are confronted with facts they break down, go into a trance like state and resort to school yard playground name calling.

A Production of GOP Labs. More info:

When you confront Liberals and use pure fact and truth this is the reactions you get from them. All they can do is resort to some pathetic name calling showing their true ignorance at the subject in hand.  Notice the tweet from Ester that says I have been Blocked. This is typical Liberal behavior when they are confronted with facts they go into what you call a trance like state. But it is not Ester I have an issue with it is the failed liberal’s he/she believes in…

So beings Obama didn’t want to raise the debt ceiling in 2006 that makes him an extremist right? What is good for the goose is good for the gander….


Speaker of the House John Boehner‘s bill to raise the debt ceiling passed Friday night. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid‘s plan will be voted on Saturday night. What are the similarities and differences between the plans?


Both plans would save about the same amount of money over ten years. The Reid bill would save $909 billion. The Boehner bill (including the July 29 changes) would save $917 billion.

Both plans would cut about the same amount (about $1 trillion) from the 2012 and 2013 budgets (the only budgets that this Congress has any real authority over). (This does not include Reid’s “war savings,” see below.)

Both plans create a super-committee – a bipartisan committee of 12 members from both houses – to come up with a bill that reforms taxes and entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Both houses would be required to vote on whatever bill the committee came up with.

Both plans cap discretionary (non-entitlement) spending. The caps rise with inflation after 2014.


Reid’s plan assumes a drawdown of United States’ forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to save $1.2 trillion. These savings are not included in Boehner’s bill. House Republicans are calling this part of Reid’s bill a “gimmick” because troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan will save money regardless of which bill is passed.

The Reid plan would raise the debt ceiling enough to get past the 2012 election in a single vote – a one-step process. The Boehner plan would require a two-step process – a small debt limit increase now, a large debt limit increase later which would be tied to the super-committee bill.

Under Reid’s plan, there would be no consequences if Congress did not pass the super-committee bill. Under Boehner’s plan, the second debt ceiling increase would come after passage of the super-committee bill. If Congress did not pass the super-committee bill, it would have to find another way to raise the debt ceiling.

After Boehner failed to get enough votes to pass his bill in the House on Thursday, he added a balanced budget amendment requirement to the bill in order to get more Republicans to support it. This requirement helped Boehner get the votes he needed to pass the House. It also made it less likely to pass the Senate.

The House passed the bill (218-210) Friday night. Twenty-two Republicans voted no along with every Democrat. The Senate will vote on the Reid bill Saturday night, sometime after midnight.


The bills are not that far apart in spending cuts, which suggests that the parties are closer to a compromise than public rhetoric would suggest.

Democrats argue that the Reid bill is better because all of the uncertainty produced by the two-step process in Boehner’s bill would be bad for the economy. Republicans argue that the Boehner bill would be better because it would force Congress to make tough choices on entitlement reform.

Tea Party Republicans do not like either bill. They do not like the Reid bill because it does not do enough to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They do not like the Boehner bill because the super-committee could include tax increases.

Before this week, the differences between Republicans and Democrats appeared to be over tax increases. Republicans said they would not support a plan that increased taxes (even if it came from eliminating deductions, rather than increasing tax rates). Democrats said that they would not support a plan that did not include some tax increases (which could come from eliminating deductions). Ironically, the Reid bill, supported by Democrats, has no tax increases and the Boehner bill, supported by Republicans, most likely would increase taxes (by eliminating deductions) through the super-committee bill.

What the current debate shows, therefore, is that having a one-step process versus a two-step process is more important to the parties right now than whether or not tax increases are included in the bill.

The current debate also suggests that one of the most difficult parts of passing a bill will be getting past all the animosity members of each party have for each other. Republicans do not want to vote for a bill supported by Democrats and Democrats do not want to vote for a bill supported by Republicans.

This point was made by Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) when he explained his support for Boehner’s bill via Twitter, saying, “Boehner Plan is not a perfect bill. However, the fact Pelosi, Reid and Obama hate it doggone makes it perfect enough – where is their plan?”



CBO has been asked to compare the estimated cumulative budgetary savings for Speaker Boehner’s July 27, 2011, version of the Budget Control Act of 2011, to the savings that would be attributable to Majority Leader Reid’s July 25, 2011, version of the Budget Control Act without the estimated savings that are attributable to proposed caps on new funding for war-related activities (often called overseas contingency operations, or OCO). The attached table provides that comparison.

Speaker Boehner’s proposal: As noted in CBO’s July 27 letter to Speaker Boehner, we estimated cumulative savings, including debt service, of $917 billion over the 2012–2021 period for implementing the Budget Control Act of 2011, as proposed in the House on July 25, 2011, with an amendment proposed on July 27, 2011. (Those savings are measured relative to CBO’s March 2011 baseline, adjusted to reflect enactment of 2011 appropriations.) That proposal did not address future funding for war-related activities.

Majority Leader Reid’s proposal: In CBO’s July 27 letter to Majority Leader Reid, we estimated cumulative savings, including debt service, of $2,176 billion over the 2012–2021 period for implementing the Budget Control Act of 2011, as proposed in the Senate on July 25, 2011. (Again, those savings are measured relative to CBO’s March 2011 baseline, adjusted to reflect enactment of 2011 appropriations.) The cumulative savings for Majority Leader Reid’s July 25 proposal include the effects of establishing caps on new funding for war-related activities.

Excluding the effects of the caps on funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and similar activities from Majority Leader Reid’s July 25 proposal would yield 10-year savings of $909 billion, including debt-service effects, $8 billion less (over the 2012–2021 period) than estimated for Speaker Boehner’s July 27 proposal